Ivana Bacik (Independent)

It gives me great pleasure to be here on behalf of the Labour Party to welcome the introduction of this ground-breaking Bill. I am proud to be here to represent the party with a proud tradition on gay rights and the first political party to bring before either House legislation recognising the status of gay couples in law.

In 2004, my dear friend and colleague, Senator Norris, a pioneer on gay rights, was the first person to bring forward legislation. His Civil Partnership Bill was debated in this House in 2005 and 2008. However, the Labour Party introduced a Civil Union Bill in the Dáil in 2006 and again in 2007, which Deputy Howlin proposed. That Bill would have gone a great deal further than this one does. We have a proud record on gay rights and I am proud to be here to say we will support this Bill.

However, we have reservations. In the party's view and in mine, this Bill does not go far enough. It does not represent equality for gay couples. It does not provide for recognition of gay marriage and it has a most glaring omission in that it has only a very minimal reference to protection for the children of families involving two parents of the same sex. It lacks protection for children of gay parents and this is a major flaw which we and Senator Norris will attempt to address through a series of amendments.

While we support this Bill as a step forward, an advance in the rights of gay people, we do not see it as being an ending post. As the Irish Council for Civil Liberties said, this is a staging post and not a milestone. It is only a step on the way to true equality.

Moreover, I do not see why we could not have gone further in this Bill. A great deal of time has already passed in which this Bill has been campaigned for. This Bill has not come about easily. I pay tribute to the great work of groups like GLEN and the NLGF, Senator Norris and many other courageous individuals, some of whom are in the Visitors Gallery and whose work has brought about this Bill and a situation in which all the political parties have signed up to this. We could have gone further given the long genesis of this Bill and the long road we have all travelled to get here.

I should declare an interest here. I am junior counsel in the Zappone-Gilligan case, which is awaiting a trial date before the Supreme Court. A wonderful couple, Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan, are seeking recognition not only of their Canadian marriage but of their right to marry in Ireland. As I said, that case is awaiting a date. The Supreme Court has never explicitly answered the question of whether or not the right to marry under the Constitution includes a right to marry for same sex couples. That question has not yet been addressed. As Senator Norris has said, the Law Reform Commission has said it would not be unconstitutional to give the same rights of marriage to same sex couples.

I will address this point further after the suspension, but may I make a final point? There is still a small number of people who object even to civil partnership and who have put their objections to marriage on the record. However, it is extraordinary that they have never explained how recognition of gay marriage would impact adversely on the rights of any existing married couples or individuals. They have never said what harm it would do. In the absence of that, we know it will not do harm. It will not dilute the rights of any other people, as Senator McDonald has said. There is no need to oppose either civil partnership or full marriage rights for gay couples.